Comments on: Conspiracy Thinking – Skepticism’s Evil Twinhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/
Your Daily Fix of Neuroscience, Skepticism, and Critical ThinkingTue, 03 Mar 2015 19:50:07 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1By: elmer mccurdyhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/comment-page-1/#comment-49803
elmer mccurdyFri, 01 Feb 2013 16:01:36 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620#comment-49803collection of critiques of Bugliosi's book, looks reasonable to me:
http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/collection of critiques of Bugliosi’s book, looks reasonable to me:http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/
]]>By: Mlemahttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/comment-page-1/#comment-38502
MlemaWed, 23 Nov 2011 06:00:35 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620#comment-38502skep·tic/ˈskeptik/
Noun:
A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
I don't understand people who call themselves skeptics, and yet are loathe to question the status quo - instead, seeking out the majority opinion, claiming it as the common-sense version, and defending it with "science" and "reason"
I surely don't know about the "lone shooter" story, but the JFK assassination was definitely a conspiracy. It was plotted by mafia and kept secret by the mafia's knowledge of JFK's plan for a coup in Cuba.
read:
http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Sacrifice-Robert-Kennedy-Murder/dp/B00119R64C/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
and if those 900+ pages are too much for you, just read the free "Look Inside!" first pages of the book to explain the basics of the conspiracy
definitely fit for your must-read list!skep·tic/ˈskeptik/
Noun:

A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

I don’t understand people who call themselves skeptics, and yet are loathe to question the status quo – instead, seeking out the majority opinion, claiming it as the common-sense version, and defending it with “science” and “reason”

I surely don’t know about the “lone shooter” story, but the JFK assassination was definitely a conspiracy. It was plotted by mafia and kept secret by the mafia’s knowledge of JFK’s plan for a coup in Cuba.

and if those 900+ pages are too much for you, just read the free “Look Inside!” first pages of the book to explain the basics of the conspiracy

definitely fit for your must-read list!

]]>By: mindmehttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/comment-page-1/#comment-28648
mindmeSat, 25 Dec 2010 14:52:29 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620#comment-28648I've found a lot of people who subscribe to conspiracy theories tend to be people who have a habit of simply doubting the official story. And then they label themselves, oddly, as skeptics. At a recent skepticamp in Toronto after the talks I met a couple people who attended and vaguely defined themselves as skeptics. I think this might have been their first skeptic event. They then went on to argue that 9/11 was an inside job, the government could have faked the moon landings, etc.I’ve found a lot of people who subscribe to conspiracy theories tend to be people who have a habit of simply doubting the official story. And then they label themselves, oddly, as skeptics. At a recent skepticamp in Toronto after the talks I met a couple people who attended and vaguely defined themselves as skeptics. I think this might have been their first skeptic event. They then went on to argue that 9/11 was an inside job, the government could have faked the moon landings, etc.
]]>By: Steven Novellahttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/comment-page-1/#comment-28582
Steven NovellaThu, 23 Dec 2010 18:50:06 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620#comment-28582kenny - I don't know what position you are referring to with "both sides" - in my experience, no matter how carefully I articulate my position on faith, etc., some people will mistake it for a straw-man accomodationist position.
I also took a very nuanced position on tone. "Tone trolls" are at one end of the spectrum, who will harp about tone instead of more substantive point, and who often confuse sharp but legitimate criticism with the ad hominem logical fallacy.
But at the other end are those who think that tone does not matter at all, or that a maximally harsh tone is always warranted and appropriate.
My position is that tone is less important than substance - but it is not unimportant. Depending on your goals, it is worthwhile to adjust your tone to the audience and context. Further, not everyone with whom you disagree deserves the same level of criticism - again, context matters.kenny – I don’t know what position you are referring to with “both sides” – in my experience, no matter how carefully I articulate my position on faith, etc., some people will mistake it for a straw-man accomodationist position.

I also took a very nuanced position on tone. “Tone trolls” are at one end of the spectrum, who will harp about tone instead of more substantive point, and who often confuse sharp but legitimate criticism with the ad hominem logical fallacy.

But at the other end are those who think that tone does not matter at all, or that a maximally harsh tone is always warranted and appropriate.

My position is that tone is less important than substance – but it is not unimportant. Depending on your goals, it is worthwhile to adjust your tone to the audience and context. Further, not everyone with whom you disagree deserves the same level of criticism – again, context matters.

]]>By: elmer mccurdyhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/comment-page-1/#comment-28557
elmer mccurdyWed, 22 Dec 2010 19:11:42 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620#comment-28557Michael Meadon:
“vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character”
Eh, I don't know if that necessarily describes the JFK conspiracy theory, which is why it can remain attractive to people who aren't prone to believe in the Illuminati or whatever. That's why refuting it requires such a detailed discussion.
In any case, I see the concept abused a lot, mainly in discussions of politics, and I believe I've seen it applied in comments here to the idea of Big Pharma, even though it seems pretty obvious to me that they have a very powerful political lobby and can be quite effective at pushing there products on doctors (including my own, I'm afraid, although I still see him for prescription renewals and whatnot because he's a pleasant guy who's in my neighborhood). But I digress.Michael Meadon:

“vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character”

Eh, I don’t know if that necessarily describes the JFK conspiracy theory, which is why it can remain attractive to people who aren’t prone to believe in the Illuminati or whatever. That’s why refuting it requires such a detailed discussion.

In any case, I see the concept abused a lot, mainly in discussions of politics, and I believe I’ve seen it applied in comments here to the idea of Big Pharma, even though it seems pretty obvious to me that they have a very powerful political lobby and can be quite effective at pushing there products on doctors (including my own, I’m afraid, although I still see him for prescription renewals and whatnot because he’s a pleasant guy who’s in my neighborhood). But I digress.

]]>By: ccbowershttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/comment-page-1/#comment-28537
ccbowersWed, 22 Dec 2010 04:22:54 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620#comment-28537I'm surprised at the commenters picking up on the use of the word "tone." Just because the same word is used, there is no need to bring a bunch of baggage from other uses of the word in skepticism. Its pretty clear to me that sarcasm and ridicule is important, but moreso when dealing with the absurd and willfully irrational. Not adjusting your approach when you have a reasoned disagreement really levels the playing field for the ridiculous nonsenseI’m surprised at the commenters picking up on the use of the word “tone.” Just because the same word is used, there is no need to bring a bunch of baggage from other uses of the word in skepticism. Its pretty clear to me that sarcasm and ridicule is important, but moreso when dealing with the absurd and willfully irrational. Not adjusting your approach when you have a reasoned disagreement really levels the playing field for the ridiculous nonsense
]]>By: kennykjchttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/comment-page-1/#comment-28532
kennykjcTue, 21 Dec 2010 22:06:02 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620#comment-28532Steve: You made a blog post here a few months ago about your stance on religion which was basically the old "both sides" canard which is popular in skepticism regarding religion. But you called one side of the debate "tone trolls", and so your comments strike me as being exactly that.Steve: You made a blog post here a few months ago about your stance on religion which was basically the old “both sides” canard which is popular in skepticism regarding religion. But you called one side of the debate “tone trolls”, and so your comments strike me as being exactly that.
]]>By: BillyJoe7http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/comment-page-1/#comment-28530
BillyJoe7Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:47:01 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620#comment-28530Steven Novella,
"I still think the bottom line is that he was employing a flawed method for his online articles resulting in inadvertant plagiarism. "
Randi did the same thing a couple of years ago when he mixed up his own contribution to an article his was writing with a response contributed by a forum member. The forum member called him on it an accused him of plagiarism. Randi's defence was much like you decribe for Posner.
(It didn't actually go down well with other forum members at the time which may have had something to do with his ill-considered and unfair outbursts against a few forumites who dared to express a different view on things whilst at the same time blundering on with his own unscientific views on AGW and evolution. But that's another story.)Steven Novella,

“I still think the bottom line is that he was employing a flawed method for his online articles resulting in inadvertant plagiarism. ”

Randi did the same thing a couple of years ago when he mixed up his own contribution to an article his was writing with a response contributed by a forum member. The forum member called him on it an accused him of plagiarism. Randi’s defence was much like you decribe for Posner.

(It didn’t actually go down well with other forum members at the time which may have had something to do with his ill-considered and unfair outbursts against a few forumites who dared to express a different view on things whilst at the same time blundering on with his own unscientific views on AGW and evolution. But that’s another story.)

]]>By: sonichttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/comment-page-1/#comment-28528
sonicTue, 21 Dec 2010 19:28:00 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620#comment-28528conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers, creationists, evolutionists, 'the lone gunmanists', AGWists…
It seems the question is this- Is the person teaching or trying to have a discussion?
If they are teaching, then there can be no disagreement. (If you aren't interested in the subject, you can say so directly).
If they are discussing, then they can answer the question, "What would make you change your mind about this?"
It seems that this simple test can save much time.conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers, creationists, evolutionists, ‘the lone gunmanists’, AGWists…
It seems the question is this- Is the person teaching or trying to have a discussion?
If they are teaching, then there can be no disagreement. (If you aren’t interested in the subject, you can say so directly).
If they are discussing, then they can answer the question, “What would make you change your mind about this?”
It seems that this simple test can save much time.
]]>By: Michael Meadonhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/conspiracy-thinking-skepticisms-evil-twin/comment-page-1/#comment-28526
Michael MeadonTue, 21 Dec 2010 18:12:00 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2620#comment-28526@Elmer: of course there are conspiracies. But Steve has always made (and is here implicitly making) a distinction between ordinary and <i>grand</i> conspiracies. (Beautiful parody of such theories <a href="http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Grand_Conspiracy" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Steve has only ever argued (AFAIK) that those who believe in grand conspiracies deserve to be called loons. Tuskegee, the conspiracy of Catiline, the 20 July plot and so on were conspiracies, but they differ from the 9/11*, the Illuminati, and JFK conspiracies in that they <i>don't</i> require the existence of "'vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character" (<a href="http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l29consp.htm" rel="nofollow">ref</a>).
People plot in secret to achieve political ends and sometimes they succeed. But no group of humans can be so unified, effective, powerful etc. to pull something like 9/11 off.
The Lobster Magazine article I cite above, by the way, is a powerful call for more social scientific research into (ordinary) conspiracies.
*Of course, 9/11 WAS a conspiracy - between 19 men, bin Laden and some other cronies to hijack four planes and fly them into four buildings across the US. It manifestly was not a conspiracy implemented by the Bush administration.@Elmer: of course there are conspiracies. But Steve has always made (and is here implicitly making) a distinction between ordinary and grand conspiracies. (Beautiful parody of such theories here). Steve has only ever argued (AFAIK) that those who believe in grand conspiracies deserve to be called loons. Tuskegee, the conspiracy of Catiline, the 20 July plot and so on were conspiracies, but they differ from the 9/11*, the Illuminati, and JFK conspiracies in that they don’t require the existence of “‘vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character” (ref).

People plot in secret to achieve political ends and sometimes they succeed. But no group of humans can be so unified, effective, powerful etc. to pull something like 9/11 off.

The Lobster Magazine article I cite above, by the way, is a powerful call for more social scientific research into (ordinary) conspiracies.

*Of course, 9/11 WAS a conspiracy – between 19 men, bin Laden and some other cronies to hijack four planes and fly them into four buildings across the US. It manifestly was not a conspiracy implemented by the Bush administration.